Supervisor Norman Yee’s Official Statement on Board of Supervisors’ Police Staffing Resolution

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors took a vote on a non-binding resolution to establish a Board policy to support increasing the number police officers in San Francisco based on population growth. We have heard from many District 7 residents who were perplexed by my decision to oppose this resolution. Since the media did not cover my perspective, I want to take this opportunity to explain my position.

Since coming into office, I have urged the City to increase the number of police officers to the level that our current Charter supports, which is 1,971. The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) currently has 1,689 full-duty officers, so we are roughly 300 officers short of meeting the 1,971 goal. Just a few years ago, SFPD had a hiring freeze due to the economic recession and struggled to increase its force. That was unacceptable to me. This year, I supported a City budget which allowed SFPD to add 8 police academy classes over the next two years to train new officers. Police Chief Greg Suhr believes that our city will reach 1,971 police officers by 2017 with this increase in classes.

The resolution introduced by my colleagues did not simply state that we wanted to increase the number of officers to meet our current needs. I would have supported that. Instead, the resolution called for increasing our police force beyond 2,200 officers. The 2,200 figure is based on an old report completed in 2008. The sponsors of the resolution did not even bother to have a discussion with the San Francisco Police Commission, the oversight body of the SF Police Department, about this goal. I have an issue with supporting a policy statement that does not offer an open, transparent dialogue about the real needs to support an increase. I also don’t believe in making decisions based on outdated data. Since 2008, there have been many changes that influence the assessment of the appropriate number of police officers needed to keep our city safe. This includes new technology that we are investing in to increase SFPD’s ability to decrease response time. Can there be other changes to make SFPD more efficient? Can we move police officers out of desk jobs and on to the beat instead? Are there effective crime prevention programs that would influence the number of officers needed to ensure public safety?

I also want to point out that this resolution is not impactful. It is merely a statement–not a mandate or an action. If we really want to talk about increasing public safety, we should be looking at proactive ways to determine the needs of our city. We have at least two years before the SFPD can even reach the 1,971 goal established by our Charter. I want us to get to a point where we are able to make the call to increase the number of officers based on a comprehensive process. I wanted to offer an amendment to this resolution to include a process to determine how many police officers are needed in the City based on current analysis. I wanted to take the politics out of this vote.

I completely support our police force and look forward to getting our District 7 stations fully staffed to serve our residents. But, as we plan for the future, I want to continue this conversation and approach the question of appropriate staffing for all our Public Safety departments in a comprehensive way.

I hope this helps to clarify my position on this resolution. Let’s make sound, logical decisions rather than political ones. It’s only fair to the residents of our District and this great city that we take the time to do it right.

Friends of the Urban Forest tree planting in Sunnyside August 29

Friends of the Urban Forest (FUF) has scheduled a community tree planting for the Sunnyside area on 8/29. We are excited to back in your area.

Anyone that wants to sign up for a tree must do so by 7/22 and there is more info on the neighborhood page:

http://www.fuf.net/sunnysidebalboa

Would love your help spreading the word! Let us know if you have any ideas. We love planting in your wonderful neighborhood.

CCSF chancellor steps down, interim named By Nanette Asimov Published

From SF Chronicle:

State officials announced Friday that the chancellor of City College of San Francisco— which has fended off closure and has struggled for three years to remain accredited — has stepped down to run the school’s facilities department.

Art Tyler, a military expert and former head of Sacramento City College who took the job that few wanted less than two years ago, was hailed as a savior for the college when he was hired in 2013. City College, teetering on the brink of closure, needed a permanent chancellor as it tried to address accreditation deficiences. Two interim chancellors preceeded him. He is now vice chancellor of facilities at the state’s largest public school, which has nearly 80,000 students, and will develop a master plan for the school’s numerous buildings.

State community colleges Chancellor Brice Harris gave no explanation for why Tyler was out as chancellor, and in a tersely worded announcement simply thanked Tyler for his 19-month service. His office did not respond to requests for an explanation.

Harris and Guy Lease, the state-appointed special trustee overseeing City College until the elected Board of Trustees resumes power in July, announced that the new interim chancellor is Susan Lamb, who has served as vice chancellor of academic affairs since 2013.

“Her knowledge of the college and of accreditation makes her an excellent leader for the next phase of development of the college,” the statement said

Some faculty leaders were thrilled with the transition.

“It’s a great, great piece of news, said Susan Berston, a business instructor who serves on the executive council of the Academic Senate.

Lamb, who has been a faculty member and dean, is “really well respected,” Berston said. “She’s collaborative and understands the needs of a very diverse group of constituents. She’s super passionate and cares about the needs of the students — who are our customers, after all.”

City College remains accredited but is still struggling to repair deficiences. The college has until fall 2016 to demonstrate full compliance. A decision by the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges about whether the college is no longer at risk of losing accreditation is expected in early 2017.

Nanette Asimov is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: nasimov@sfchronicle.com